- The Washington Times - Monday, February 27, 2006

The Bush administration issued its National Security Strategy 3-1/2 years ago, in September 2002. Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis termed it, “the most fundamental reassessment of American grand strategy in over half a century,” since Harry Truman set our course in the Cold War.

Today, a consensus seems to be rising that the Bush administration is veering off the course it set in 2002.

Gerard Baker in the Times of London writes that the days of American military intervention are over. Reporters write that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has shoved aside neoconservatives and taken her stand with State Department professionals. It’s not a bad time, then, to look back at the National Security Strategy, to see how it has fared.

When the NSS first appeared, news stories focused on its assertion that America would act pre-emptively. This was just after George W. Bush challenged the United Nations to act on Iraq and just as he pressed Congress to vote on military action.

“We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary,” the strategy read, “to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.”

But pre-emption was not the only doctrine in the document. The words just quoted were preceded by a clause stating, “While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community.”

Even while claiming the right to act pre-emptively, Mr. Bush agreed to Tony Blair’s plea for a second U.N. resolution to justify military action in Iraq, though it was justified by previous resolutions and Saddam Hussein’s defiance of them.

And there was more to the strategy of securing America than just dealing with immediate threats. The NSS called for “global efforts to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations.” Bush critics say he has undercut that by continuing to reject the Kyoto Protocol. But the agreement Mr. Bush concluded with India, China, Japan and Australia to limit growth of greenhouse gases seems likely to produce significant results, while the European countries, for all their hauteur, are failing to meet their Kyoto targets.

Mr. Bush has also gone beyond the NSS by agreeing to joint military operations with India and encouraging a Japanese military presence abroad — both counterweights to Chinese power. There is also his surpassing, massive commitment to fight AIDS in Africa, only hinted at in the document.

In other respects, Mr. Bush has not delivered on the promises of the NSS. The Free Trade Area of the Americas, envisioned for 2005, is nowhere in sight. And “an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security,” won’t appear soon.

But there is much evidence Mr. Bush has made good on the multilateral diplomacy that the strategy called for. He has let Britain, France and Germany carry on negotiations with Iran; urged China, the only country with real leverage, to use it against North Korea; and worked with France in supporting the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon. And America is getting more cooperation from new governments in Germany and Canada.

It may be argued we aren’t having much success stopping the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. But the NSS didn’t promise success everywhere, any more than it promised military action everywhere. It proposed instead to use American power where and when possible to further “the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity.”

Mr. Bush has followed the National Security Strategy pretty faithfully, if not without mistakes — just as Harry Truman made mistakes in following his Cold War strategy. What about future administrations? Truman’s successors mostly followed the course he set in NSC-68 for four decades, as Mr. Gaddis shows in his new book, “The Cold War.”

My prediction: Mr. Bush’s successors, for all their criticisms (John McCain wants a larger military; Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wouldn’t have voted for military action in Iraq knowing what she knows now), will find it hard to move outside the framework of the National Security Strategy, as they take on fighting what we’re starting to call the Long War.

Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide